The sibling comment proposed a possible scoring mechanism which might result in enjoyable gameplay, but I think the bigger point (for me, at least) is the Mind Chess represents a reducto ad absurdum of the strategy game genre. It eschews as many rules as possible, leaving you only with the goal of knowing your opponent's mind. So Mind Chess is more of a thought exercise.

It's similar to the 2-minute version of Diplomacy - get everyone together and the second sneakiest bastard wins; because nobody will let the sneakiest bastard win.

The Search for the Longest Infinite Chess Game

https://youtu.be/b-Bb_TyhC1A

I have never played it, but I could imagine a scoring mechanism that would make it interesting, and perhaps is implied by the rules:

The score value starts at 1. Every additional "check" multiplies the score value by 2 (so 2, 4, 8, 16...). The first player to say "checkmate" receives the score. Track your summed score between games; the player with the highest overall score at any given time is "winning."

Isn't the optimal strategy just to say "checkmate" immediately? That dominates anything else.

I think to have any chance of making this work, you’d need to have a community of players in a tournament. Everybody gets to issue some number of challenges, and the winner is the person who accumulates the most points over the course of the tournament. I think you should only get points based on the length of games you win.

Then the game at least has a chance to develop some mechanics. Players who delayed longer have a chance at winning more points. They also might be challenged more…

Not in an iterated game. If my team agrees we'll never checkmate before turn 5, the game is the same except we start the actual game on turn 5 with a big score advantage compared to everyone else.

You can leave at any time by breaking the rule, but then you will be playing with other people who say checkmate immediately, and that would be much worse.

Being prosocial is in fact a stable equilibrium. As prophecized by gestures broadly at everything.

That would be the equivalent of spawn camping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(video_games)

Isn't that just iterated prisoner dilemma?

It only works if there are more than two players

Give two players cards, "Check" and "Checkmate".

Both players choose a card. Players then in turns reveal their card, and if Check, make another choice. The player first revealing Checkmate wins if their opponent's currently-chosen card is also a Checkmate.

But then this just gives the win to the first person to open their card, since in that round they had both selected Checkmate. Or, you have an incentive to rush to open your card when you know you've selected Checkmate, as you want to be the first one to open.

Maybe I should've worded differently for clarity, the game doesn't go forever:

The player first revealing Checkmate ends the game. They win if their opponent's currently-chosen card is also a Checkmate, otherwise the opponent wins.

In the proposed game above, there is no rounds, just alternating plays, in which you have to select you play before the other player announces their play, then swap and repeat

So both players select their cards, then player 1 announces, then player 2, then select, then player 2 announces, then player 1? This seems a bit limiting, as you can't really select Checkmate on the play where you don't reveal first, because you only stand to lose.

I believe the intended turn order is:

1: P1 selects 2: P2 selects 3: P1 reveals 4: P1 selects 5: P2 reveals 6: GOTO 2

I.e. each player always selects immediately before their opponent reveals.

Yeah, but what stops P1 from DDos'ing and picking checkmate each time?

If P2 picks check the first time, then they're done. At any point after if they pick checkmate, since P1 has checkmate selected they will reveal it and P2 will lose.

It seems like a poorly thought through game...

Because P1 lost on their first turn if P2 wasn’t about to pick checkmate

That assume a rule that wasn't state.

You're assume if someone picks 'checkmate' and the next player picks 'check' the games is over and the checkmate selector loses. I assumed that it means you treat it like 'check' 'check' and continue playing. But neither is actually specified in OPs post.

But let's assume it's your rules. Then winning is easy, just never pick checkmate. Literally never. As soon as your opponent picks it, they lose.

It's a terribly designed game as described.

So is war (the card game), but people still play it

I think the proposed game has that both of you lose, like tic tac toe. The only way to win is to checkmate as described. Although it is a memoryless game as proposed, so all options (restart, continue, end) are indistinguishable. Maybe if you win, you go again?

Anyways, the game seems to be described to be the equivalent to the political doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Also a terribly designed game.

But then you won't know if the other player has selected checkmate when you reveal yours.